A lifetime of reading and cultivating taste in film, music and art--and what have I got to show for it? This blog, apparently. As a gentleman blogger I'm able to write about just about whatever I care to write about. "Bury the Lead" (or lede, in journalism), my name for this series, is what you're not supposed to do. But what's the rush? Let's digress. Spot me a paragraph or two. I've been working for the last 12 years as a copy editor at Forbes. So language, the way words are used, misused and mistyped (often by me), is another interest of mine. And I hate proofreading my own stuff. Feel free to lend an eye.

Circumcision: You Can't Have It Both Ways

The motion to ban circumcision in San Francisco, which voters there will have an opportunity to vote on in November, has been noted at Forbes and on hundreds of other sites. Sources ancient and modern have been brought to bear on the subject, pro and con, but what most surprised me was learning that many circumcised men felt that by being subject to circumcision in infancy they were denied their full measure of sexual enjoyment as adults. They feel that they’re missing something other than a flap of skin. Prior to reading that, I hadn’t heard of foreskin envy.

To claim they’re missing something, circumcised males must rely on testimony by the uncircumcised and those who study them. We don’t know of any circumcised males who have reverted to their natural, uncircumcised state, thus having it both ways (and preferring the latter). Having it both ways, of course, brings to mind the mythical Tiresias, whom the gods turned into a woman as punishment for striking two snakes while they were mating.

Tiresias, in fact, had the last laugh, claiming that of the ten parts of sexual pleasure, men experienced but a single part and women all ten. If you care to take his (or her) word for it.

I’d like to take sole credit for this interesting, though tenuous, link between the Tiresias myth and the debate over circumcision, but evidently the connection is almost a century old.

A friend has been kind enough to lend me the typescript of an unpublished, though not unperformed, Yiddish play. My own knowledge of Yiddish is limited, but I have been making my way through the play with a help of a dictionary and a very old man.

Der Yiddische Tiresias (“The Jewish Tiresias”) is a play by Peretz Pntschik that was first presented at the Brownsville (Brooklyn) Roumanian Art Theatre in 1926 and most recently revived, as a musical, at SUNY Purchase in 2006, with funding from the Pntschik Foundation. (Peretz Pntschik never made a cent on his plays, but as the son of “Pinky” Pntschik, renowned as “The Other Crown Prince of Kishke,” he was an heir to one of Brooklyn’s great stuffed derma fortunes.) Here’s a summary of those scenes I’ve managed to read so far:

Driven eppes meshuga (slightly crazy) by a premonition of his wife’s infidelity, Tsurik, an itinerant seller of books and amulets, returns home after a long sales trip to find his adored wife, Susan (played in the original production by the playwright’s wife, Susan), stripped to her petticoat and in the arms of the shirtless Zyosha, a Cossack tailor.

Though Susan insists she’s done nothing wrong, Tsurik is inconsolable. Naming the shtetl folk he’d previously suspected of having an interest in his wife, Tsurik chastises her: “If only you had slept with One-Eyed Yankel or Groyse Grusse or even Gimpy Gimpel or Shlumpy Shloime or Chasdei the Chazan or Lazer the Loudmouth or Adipose Lippa or… .” The list of the town’s Jewish men is quite extensive, and by the time Tsurik is done with the litany, Susan has had ample time to pack her clothes and her best linens, hard-boil a few eggs and travel one town over to move back in with her parents. Thus ends Act One.

In Act Two Tsurik immediately regrets forcing her departure based on circumstantial evidence alone, but he reminds himself that if Susan slept with Zyosha, he will never be able to win her back, quoting Bereshit Rabba (the midrash on Genesis) to the effect that it is hard for a woman who has slept with an uncircumcised man to separate from him. “Perhaps,” he says, “I might have been able to satisfy her if only my parents of blessed memory hadn’t subjected me to a ritual circumcision at the age of eight days!” Alas, his condition is irreversible, and he has no choice but to rummage among his papers, find his marriage contract and begin divorce proceedings.

“Not so fast,” an unearthly offstage voice declares. Tsurik is frightened and wonders whether he is hearing the voice of God, an angel or his next-door neighbor, Lazer. “You’re wondering what it would be like to be uncircumcised,” the voice says. “See for yourself whether it makes any difference.” As thunder rattles and sparks fly, Tsurik is transformed. Peeking into his pants, Tsurik says, “What a schmuck!” Curtain. End of Act Two.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

I am a man that was circumcised as a baby and I wish I was not. I wish I could have experienced sex the way it was intended. But more importantly, I was denied my choice to keep a functional, natural, healthy body part. I’m not saying I’m bitter or angry. For me, this is a human rights issue.

For example:

A ritual/religious pin-prick on a baby girl’s genitals, to draw one drop of blood, is called Type 4 female genital mutilation (FGM) and has been illegal since March 1997. All forms of FGM – equal to or less invasive then male circumcision are illegal for ANY reason – including religion. However, a parent can remove a baby boy’s foreskin for ANY reason. These include, “just because” and “I think it looks better”. This is not equal rights under the law and a violation of the, “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, adopted by the United Nations and the Canadian Charter, to name a few.

As I commented elsewhere (http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfisher/2011/05/24/im-not-making-this-up-dept-san-francisco-mulls-ban-on-circumcisions/: “Questions regarding the rights of children have a certain force, but other arguments, quoting authorities like Aristotle and Maimonides, who otherwise would not be given a tad of credence by the perplexed, are beside the point. … The health arguments are somewhat beside the point, too. There are no compelling arguments on either side, though, of course, that may change. Whether good for you or not, that’s not what it’s about. It’s a tribal thing. And for those for whom it’s not, it’s a matter to take up with your pediatrician after discussing any possible risks and benefits of the procedure.”

There’s also the issue of whether nature “intends” anything. I’m not sure it does.

I try to maintain a light tone in my posts but sometimes serious responses are more appropriate. The San Francisco anti-circumcision movement has taken a turn toward anti-Semitic caricature. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a link to a reflexive response by The Anchoress, the managing editor of the catholic portal at Patheos: http://bit.ly/lvzsUS.